51–60 of 163 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with this idea is that in general, smart kids come from smart parents, and in general, smart adults earn more income (and thus are less in need of a supplemental income)
[deleted]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with this idea is that in general, smart kids come from smart parents, and in general, smart adults earn more income (and thus are less in need of a supplemental income)
The problem with your analysis is 'in general'. There are a lot of kids who fall into the Mariana trench size cracks of 'in general'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with this idea is that in general, smart kids come from smart parents, and in general, smart adults earn more income (and thus are less in need of a supplemental income)
[deleted]
The researcher supposed that the reduced stressors in poor parents' lives allowed them to be more nurturing, resulting in reduced problems with their children. Seems like a no-brainer to do, considering this analysis: "Bearing that in mind, Randall Akee, an economist at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a collaborator of Professor Costello’s, argues that the supplements actually save money in the long ru…
Correction: this is what happens when poor Cherokee receive a stipend, but let's not pretend that the Cherokee are the ones we're worried about here. There are differences between the subcultures, and those differences almost certainly extend to how they treat money. Furthermore, the psychological and social difference between receiving money from a source which a population would consider to be 'theirs' cannot be ov…
"... let's not pretend that the Cherokee are the ones we're worried about here."
"Successfully repeating this experiment in poor black and latino populations a few times would go a long ways towards convincing the skeptical... "
I'm all in favor of repeating the experiment in whatever populations, ideally the general one on a large enough sample size to tease out demographic information. I don't want to seem like I'm implying something here, so I will instead say overtly that I find the way you've singled out certain populations for skepticism with regards to whether they should be helped disturbing.
[1] http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/income_expenditu...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm always surprised people yell about the U.S. not wanting to help those in poverty. I think that's pretty well refuted by noting that the U.S. is #1 in charitable giving [1]. The bigger problem seems to be people trusting government imposed redistribution schemes rather than the rejection of them altogether. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/world-giving-index-...
Except that the plurality of U.S. charity goes to religious charities. Charitable giving for health, education, and human services accounts for only 33% of all charitable giving in the U.S. How much of that goes to programs designed to address poverty is debatable. Source: http://www.alysterling.com/documents/GUSA2012ExecutiveSummar...
Who actually do quite a bit of good with it:
"We should start by noting that Catholic charity work is extensive and widely considered a crucial part of the nation’s social safety net. By itself, Catholic Charities USA, has more than 2,500 local agencies that serve 10 million people annually, said Mary L. Gautier, a senior research associate at the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, an institute at Georgetown University that studies the church."
"Meanwhile, Catholic News Service has noted a few other Catholic organizations that made the Chronicle’s annual 400 list, including Father Flanagan Boys Home and Covenant House. This excludes Catholic universities, which mainly provide higher education; hospitals, which are categorized separately from social services; and groups that focus on overseas work."
source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/mar/...
Considering they put out close to 4 billion every year in charity, it's hard to argue they don't help the impoverished.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm always surprised people yell about the U.S. not wanting to help those in poverty. I think that's pretty well refuted by noting that the U.S. is #1 in charitable giving [1]. The bigger problem seems to be people trusting government imposed redistribution schemes rather than the rejection of them altogether. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/19/world-giving-index-...
The US is #1 in charitable giving because it's so easy to get a tax deduction for doing so. If people had to give out of their after-tax income I suspect you'd see a quite different picture.
Can you provide some sort of proof of causation for your theory?
This is really interesting stuff. I know they touched upon it but these studies, if they really want to change things, need to do a much better job of showing an "ROI". Too often these studies seem goaled around showing that poverty has a negative impact and assume the logical next step is so we'll address that. However, many people don't have an issue with others being in poverty; particularly if they believe they'r…
No. Most staunch opponents of wealth redistribution oppose it on principle, not practical terms. You can tell them in very concrete terms that their tax dollars will benefit them more than it would hurt them and their reply will be, "Well, then you should let me distribute my money that way instead of taking it and doing it yourself."
Actually, most people don't like it because they've seen how the government "redistributes" their money and most of the time it's wasted.
This is why religious institutions tend to get so much in donations. People trust their church more than their government.
Why do we even need to ask what happens when the poor receive a stipend? Go look in the inner cities. Go to the rural communities and find a trailer park. It's happening now. What has the result been?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> " Most staunch opponents of wealth redistribution oppose it on principle, not practical terms." Please provide a citation for this claim, I have not seen any evidence either way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_as_theft
The researcher supposed that the reduced stressors in poor parents' lives allowed them to be more nurturing, resulting in reduced problems with their children. Seems like a no-brainer to do, considering this analysis: "Bearing that in mind, Randall Akee, an economist at the University of California, Los Angeles, and a collaborator of Professor Costello’s, argues that the supplements actually save money in the long ru…
Correction: this is what happens when poor Cherokee receive a stipend, but let's not pretend that the Cherokee are the ones we're worried about here. There are differences between the subcultures, and those differences almost certainly extend to how they treat money. Furthermore, the psychological and social difference between receiving money from a source which a population would consider to be 'theirs' cannot be ov…
I can't be sure what you intended to say here, but the message it sounds to me like you are implying sounds quite racist to me.
I DO care about poor Cherokee -- and poor humans in general. I have little reason to believe that any particular racial group would behave differently. You seem to be implying that blacks or latinos have a "different subculture" particularly in how they "treat money". I have no idea why you would believe this and unless there is good evidence to support it I would speculate it is probably just prejudice. I say that because, historically, essentially every one of the "racial differences" (especially the mental ones) that have been claimed have turned out to be baseless and untrue.
You also seem to be suggesting that there's a psychological difference between money received as federal assistance and money received from "one of their own casinos" because of considering it "theirs". That's an interesting claim. If true, then perhaps it suggests that a stipend program, if one were to be set up, would best be presented as if it were an earned entitlement or payout -- rather like we do with Social Security.